6" Column Packing and Extension

[ideasinbeer]

Howdy Folks,

Recently a still fell into my lap and I'm looking to make some mods.
The search function is kicking my butt for the last couple of days, despite my best interests.

The still is a 6" column with 6 perforated plates, which should work fine for stripping and brown spirits.

Now I'm not at all a handy guy, but am looking to add a column extension to be able to make neutral after a stripping run.
In my head I'm thinking a simple Spindle filled with packing. Reading here has taught me that the idea of scrubbies/wool won't work due to the size and potential length of the column. So then I'm looking at a huge mound of something like Raschig Rings which I'm unsure of, or Prismatic Packing or the like.

So if you're like me what packing actually makes sense? I think I can get the Spool at something like glacier tanks, but I'm not sure what an ideal length is.

Can you folks straighten my thinking out and point me in the right direction?

Any tips are greatly appreciated.

An idiot

[Yummyrum]

SPP is nowdays considered the ducks guts .If cost is no issue , go for it

But most are happy using scoria rock as its cheap and plentiful .

By the way , your not an idiot . Idiots don’t think .

[ideasinbeer]

Thanks Yummy,

Rocks kinda strike me as an inelegant solution. Is there a best shape for the SPP? I've seen a few, but if there isn't a "best" I'll just ask around and try the google for some cheap sourcing.

[bluefish_dist]

I ran 6” spools packed with ss scrubbies. Worked well for a neutral. I packed 7 or 8 per layer with one in the middle like a wheel. If I just threw them in the performance was lacking.

[NineInchNails]

A lot of people are using these Ceramic rings. They are extremely porous and a lot of surface area. I've read that 5# = 1 gal. I'm getting 10# this week for my 3" VM. It's said they outperform scrubbers, copper mesh, marbles and even lava rock if I recall correctly. It appears this ceramic packing is the next best thing to SPP and a fraction of the cost too. I have high hopes.

[ideasinbeer]

Bluefish, that sounds like your results would vary a wee bit. What kind of swings would you see?

NiN sounds promising. Is there a significant difference between those and Raschig Rings?

My concern seems to be that the column size would lead to significant weight and packing with some of these solutions, but maybe I'm wrong?

[NineInchNails]

Bluefish, that sounds like your results would vary a wee bit. What kind of swings would you see?

NiN sounds promising. Is there a significant difference between those and Raschig Rings?

My concern seems to be that the column size would lead to significant weight and packing with some of these solutions, but maybe I'm wrong?

I have never seen a Raschin Ring in person, but they don't appear to be very porous to me. I Googled it and found one document that says Raschig Rings have 1% porosity. That doesn't sound very porous to me either. These ceramic rings are extremely porous and become fully saturated when you dip them in water. That sounds like they would outperform Raschin Rings.


1 gal is approx 5 pounds. It will only add 10 # dry to my 3" column vs the weight of copper mesh. I'd take improved performance for some added weight. I haven't compared their weights, but I imagine SPP might weigh more than ceramic rings. I'm ordering enough for my column very soon and look forward to trying it on my next run. I've noticed that my copper mesh has been loosening up over time and now I suspect it's causing my performance issues lately. Structured packing may last virtually forever and hopefully no maintenance like copper mesh.

[shadylane]

Recently a still fell into my lap and I'm looking to make some mods.

The still is a 6" column with 6 perforated plates, which should work fine for stripping and brown spirits.

Any tips are greatly appreciated.

An idiot

Just guessing
It's going to take 10 or 12Kw of boiler power to feed a 6" perf plate column.
If the column can be packed, SS scrubbies would be the lightest and probably the cheapest option.
The rings are heavier and more expensive. They also work much better
How tall is the column?

[ideasinbeer]

Shadylane - Therein lies the rub. The thought I had was to order a spindle of undetermined length (looking for input) and throwing a sieve plate or the like under it to hold packing. The still has the power no problem. Currently its 6x6" perf plates so my thought was keep one, add an extension filled with packing. Math isn't my strong suit for an ideal length vs packing. Seems that scrubbies are good up to a certain size (4" or so from what i've read) and then they don't seem to hold shape well after that due to gravity? This (packing type) and length (of spindle) have got me running around in mental circles.

NiN thats a solid point with the porosity that I hadn't considered.

[Tabucowboy]

I'm getting 10# this week for my 3" VM.

NIN,

You will have to let us know how much 10# fills up your 3 in column.

[acfixer69]

Throwing a sieve plate under most any packing will cause flooding due to the vapor speed required.

[bluefish_dist]

Throwing a sieve plate under most any packing will cause flooding due to the vapor speed required.

Not true at all. I have done it although I prefer bubble caps under the packing. Need smaller holes in the sieve plates. I ran around 500 .070” holes in my 6”.

My vodka still was 8ft of 6”, 2 4ft spools. Those were over a 6” plate, bubble or sieve, that sat on a 30 gallon boiler loaded with low wines. Still head was vm. It had two 5500w elements on 208, so 4000w each. Ran full tilt with the 6”. I could pull 1.5 to 2 gal per hour at 190+ at the beginning of hearts. It was packed with chore boy scrubbies. I think it was 8 per layer, maybe only 7. One in the middle and the rest around in a ring.

Other packing tried, structured stainless pucks and random scrubbies. The structured packing could only get into the 185-188 range. Not even close to what was required. The random scrubbies could do 188-189, but still not good enough. After arranging the scrubbies I could run 190.2-190.5. Good enough be would have liked another 3-4 ft if I had the space. The 4” with scrubbies and 8 ft of packing could do 190.5-190.8 easily. The 4” could get the same results with 6 ft packed as the 6” at 8 ft.

[WithOrWithoutU2]

I'm ordering enough for my column very soon and look forward to trying it on my next run.

NIN...If you'll post your results I will follow this thread. I've been keeping an eye on these and would be curious if someone can post the HETP for these.

[acfixer69]

I won't say you didn't and great that you did. I tried a 36 inches of lava rock stacked on one bubble plate and it flooded till the turn down was useless. Others here with sieve plates have posted the same on similar issues. I have run the 36 inche packed column over 4 plate column but the rock were supported by a 12 ga wire.copper support 1/2" grid.

[Yummyrum]

Not do sure porosity has any real benefit to packing.
Packing is merely a surface on which liquid and vapour can exchange .

[RC Al]

I think the rings shown will be too small for a 6"
I found an industry paper the other day that in passing mentioned a MINIMUM of 10-12% of column diameter for packing size - which seems to follow accounts of successful packing jobs on here - so 5/8 to 3/4" for a 6"
If you go smaller your not getting full efficiency as there isn't enough space for the vapour and the reflux (flooding) and you will have to run slower than you could.

Height - as much as you can fit in, a 8' foot of column is way better than of a metric butt ton of power and reflux on a 5' column to achieve the same abv output/theoretical plates, columns loose HETP with the more power you throw at it, so taller is better - the 2x 4' sections bluefish mentions would cover you well

There's inelegant and works the same for a fraction of the cost, dont dismiss the scoria out of hand
If you want to persist with the scrubbies, make sure you separate it into sections so avoid the weight of the reflux compacting the mesh

[Yummyrum]

Agree with all that RC , What I’d query is the thing about scrubbers Compressing under the weight of reflux . Unless you losely packing them , I call not a problem.
OK , I only got 4” but ...
Like seriously , I ram those fuckers in with a stick . I can say there is no movement in scrubber packing that I can detect .

[acfixer69]

Throwing a sieve plate under most any packing will cause flooding due to the vapor speed required.

Not true at all. I have done it although I prefer bubble caps under the packing. Need smaller holes in the sieve plates. I ran around 500 .070” holes in my 6”.

My vodka still was 8ft of 6”, 2 4ft spools. Those were over a 6” plate, bubble or sieve, that sat on a 30 gallon boiler loaded with low wines. Still head was vm. It had two 5500w elements on 208, so 4000w each. Ran full tilt with the 6”. I could pull 1.5 to 2 gal per hour at 190+ at the beginning of hearts. It was packed with chore boy scrubbies. I think it was 8 per layer, maybe only 7. One in the middle and the rest around in a ring.

Other packing tried, structured stainless pucks and random scrubbies. The structured packing could only get into the 185-188 range. Not even close to what was required. The random scrubbies could do 188-189, but still not good enough. After arranging the scrubbies I could run 190.2-190.5. Good enough be would have liked another 3-4 ft if I had the space. The 4” with scrubbies and 8 ft of packing could do 190.5-190.8 easily. The 4” could get the same results with 6 ft packed as the 6” at 8 ft.

Shadylane - Therein lies the rub. The thought I had was to order a spindle of undetermined length (looking for input) and throwing a sieve plate or the like under it to hold packing.
He is not running plates under He is supporting scrubbies with sieve plate. Not the same thing.

[NineInchNails]

On eBay there's a lot of 3/4" ceramic rings. Here are 3/4" x 0.7" ceramic rings 6.6# for $17.99.

Here's 5/8" x 5/8" rings too.

[NineInchNails]

I'm ordering enough for my column very soon and look forward to trying it on my next run.

NIN...If you'll post your results I will follow this thread. I've been keeping an eye on these and would be curious if someone can post the HETP for these.

I may after using it for a bit. This topic is where I first heard about this packing. I just ordered some. It's one day delivery so won't be long now.

[ideasinbeer]

Wow folks, you've given me an awful lot to think of.

I'm looking to pull as neutral as possible, and of course cost is always a factor (even if its not the only one)

Please keep this thread going.

[ideasinbeer]

@RC So some thread or another on here recommended this link https://www.wisconsinstamping.com/raschig-rings/ and it has a variety of sizes. Looking at them is seems there is a lot of empty space on the larger sizes. Are we thinking that the 5/8" etc like you mentioned should work?

[NineInchNails]

This topic is what got me the pull the trigger today on the 1/2" ceramic rings. Look how short his column is! His boiler is taller than the column. Mine is almost 6'. If these ceramic rings work better than lava rock, I'll be thoroughly pleased. Rings should arrive tomorrow so I'll have a sacrificial run going ASAP.

[ideasinbeer]

NiN so the Rings would be more porous and have actual openings that may or may not play well with surface tension? Sounds like a win.

At 6" would one scale up the packing size then? Is there a real world concern of flooding vs not enough obstruction?

Paying a little more once is fine, but buying twice is a kick in the pants.

[ideasinbeer]

Looking at steel rings from a suggested supplier...

https://www.wisconsinstamping.com//wp-c ... utions.pdf

So is there an ideal free space size for the packing?

[NineInchNails]

NiN so the Rings would be more porous and have actual openings that may or may not play well with surface tension? Sounds like a win.

At 6" would one scale up the packing size then? Is there a real world concern of flooding vs not enough obstruction?

Paying a little more once is fine, but buying twice is a kick in the pants.

I'm not positive, but someone previously in this thread thought 5/8" or 3/4" rings might be better suited for larger columns. Another topic I read thought perhaps 3/8" rings might be better suited for 3" or smaller columns. I'm not sure. I figure it's only $38 so I'm giving 1/2" a go for my 3" x 5' 6" column. I have a few stacks of copper mesh at the bottom.

[NineInchNails]

Looking at steel rings from a suggested supplier...

https://www.wisconsinstamping.com//wp-c ... utions.pdf

So is there an ideal free space size for the packing?

If I were to go with a packing like that, I'd probably just buy a cheapo Mini Cut-Off Saw from Harbor Freight and just cut up copper bits from copper tubing. If you do that for approx 1 hr per day, it shouldn't take long to pack a column. People use that saw to cut 308 brass all the time to make 300 Blackout ammo. Works a treat.

[RC Al]

Agree with all that RC , What I’d query is the thing about scrubbers Compressing under the weight of reflux . Unless you losely packing them , I call not a problem.
OK , I only got 4” but ...
Like seriously , I ram those fuckers in with a stick . I can say there is no movement in scrubber packing that I can detect .

Im hearing you man - however if it was 8' of 6" and theres around 10% by volume of liquid in there (number in my head, cant quantify right now) there would be about 8.5lbs of liquid pressing down on the bottom 4" of mesh, plus the weight of the mesh Your probably right, but putting support in halfway wouldn't hurt (apart from a few$$) and eliminate a not 100% know concern from the equation

Not sure id like to pay for filling that with scrubbies

@RC So some thread or another on here recommended this link https://www.wisconsinstamping.com/raschig-rings/ and it has a variety of sizes. Looking at them is seems there is a lot of empty space on the larger sizes. Are we thinking that the 5/8" etc like you mentioned should work?

Its about maintaining the ratio of free space for the liquid and vapour to travel through, if its too big you loose a bit of HETP, if its too small you loose speed cause the column floods out early - note the word Minimum on the sizing. If your planning on running any 6" plates under the packed section, they will throttle the speed down anyways vs what you could run with just packed alone at that size, so theres not too much point trying to find the upper end of the suitable size in that set up - no doubt the 5/8 will be just fine - I'm with NIN on the cutting it yourself (cough - scoria - cough)

Dunno how much booze you need or how big your boiler is, but as bluefish mentioned above he got better results with the 4" over the 6" plates - this is a better match for running speed/power requirements of the 2 different sizes of plates vs packed and would work out cheaper to build

[ideasinbeer]

I have to admit that Scoria kinda scares me. I'm no geologist but the idea of leeching chemical out into the distillate is a turn off for me.

As to Bluefish idea of using a reducer to from 6" to 4" was something I hadn't really considered. It makes sense to me in theory but would obstructing the vapor path like that be a real world concern?

I had suggested the idea of putting a sieve plate under the packed column for support but I can't think of a reason why I couldn't have a local welder add on some sort of mesh/screen at the bottom that is sized to support the eventual packing choice.

As to cutting my own - I'm not against the idea but I'd certainly be pricing things out. My laziness knows no end.

So many choices, and as expected folks have found a few different ways to achieve success.

Thoughts folks? I'm a big believer in the wisdom of the crowd.

[The Baker]

I know nothing about rocks but the idea of scoria containing chemicals surprises me.

Maybe if it came from a field in a farm where they spray to control pests and weeds?
I suppose if you cleaned it with a sacrificial alcohol run, that would remove any chemicals that might affect future distillations?
Or is it possible a bit could continue to come through?
A knowledge of agricultural chemicals would be helpful, many lose their efficacy from season to season because the farmer will want to change his crops and his system from year to year...

Geoff